"They are the most difficult, emotional, the most gut-wrenching cases and they take a great deal of time and consideration and are stressful for everybody," Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said in an interview with the Times Union and WMHT's "New York Now."

The economic recession has increased the workload of family court judges: From 2008 to 2009, the Senate report estimates the number of court appearances will grow 26 percent, to nearly 2.6 million appearances. In comparison, family court appearances grew 7 percent from 2005-2008, the report said.

The problem is most severe in New York City, where 53 family court judges — including some on loan from other courts — had an average caseload of 1,927 cases per judge in 2008.

The strain is felt not only by the judges and court staff, but also by the litigants and the lawyers who represent them. Too often, people wait hours for their cases to be heard only to experience additional delays.

"In these types of cases, the family dynamics keep changing," said Caroline Kearney, the family law coordinator for Legal Services NYC. "It is a really bad thing when the cases are delayed, because the circumstances of the case could be different each time."

"It is especially traumatizing in domestic violence cases," she said. "Every time the victim has to recount what happened, she relives the event. And every time there's a delay, the attorney has to prepare the client again, reliving the event again and again."

The judiciary has tried to address the shortage by assigning Court of Claims judges to family court, but the action has not relieved the strain.

"Faced with this surging caseload and related obligations, some family court judges routinely carry huge annual dockets, working with staff on nights, weekends and sometimes around the clock to prioritize the most exigent cases (e.g., abuse, neglect) and meet growing legal mandates," the report said.

"In some counties, matters necessary to provide children with safe and stable homes might be allowed as little as five minutes because there are simply too many cases. Calendars for some courts, social service agencies and institutional legal providers reportedly have become so clogged that sensitive family court proceedings might wait a full year."

While caseloads have grown, only a handful of new family court judgeships have been created by the Legislature to meet the demand.

"The state's long-standing failure to provide sufficient judgeships for family court is edging the family justice system toward danger," the report states. " … The state has discriminated against family court and, by extension, the at-risk New Yorkers who have nowhere else to turn for justice, support, and protection."

Moreover, the report said delays in family court cases are among the reasons that New York fails federal performance audits, which risks federal funding under the U.S. Adoption and Safe Families Act.

In the last decade, the Legislature has only created four family court judgeships statewide — one each in Clinton, Monroe, Oneida and Orange counties. In New York City, where family court jurisdictions are most overburdened, the Legislature hasn't created a single family court judgeship in nearly two decades despite heavy advocacy from advocates, attorneys and the judiciary, particularly under former Chief Judge Judith Kaye.

Lippman, who took over as chief judge in February, explained children and families don't have a "constituency" in the Legislature that can effectively push for family court judges.

Kearney went further: "The family courts are by and large poor people's courts," she said. "You take a look at the litigants in family court and they are disproportionately poor people of color. I think that might have something to do why there isn't the same sort of resources devoted to the court."

In contrast, over the past decade the Legislature created 53 judgeships in other courts, with the greatest growth in the Court of Claims. Judges in the Court of Claims are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, which make them valuable to political leaders in Albany.

Family court judgeships don't offer the same sort of political currency. They are elected positions, except in New York City, where the mayor appoints the judges. The appointment of family court judges in New York City has been a particularly thorny problem for advocates: Republican leaders were reluctant to create appointments for Democratic mayors in the 1980s and early 1990s; more recently, Democrats have been reluctant to give appointments to Republican mayors Rudy Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg.

In recent years, legislation to create additional family court judgeships has languished in both the Democratic-controlled Assembly and the Republican-controlled Senate. The legislation never came to the floor for a vote, despite heavy lobbying by advocates and Kaye, who was chief judge at the time. But in September, the Senate passed by a bipartisan vote of 54-5 legislation introduced by Democratic Conference Leader John Sampson that would create 21 new family court judgeships, including seven in New York City. The legislation also would create one new judgeship in each of the 14 counties: Albany, Broome, Chautauqua, Chemung, Erie, Monroe, Nassau, Niagara, Oneida, Oswego, St. Lawrence, Schenectady, Suffolk and Westchester.

Sampson also commissioned the 49-page report on the issue, which will be released this week.

The fate of the legislation, however, is unclear as the state struggles with plummeting revenues and must plug an estimated $3 billion deficit in this year's budget. Both the Assembly and Gov. David Paterson have expressed support for more family court judges, but are concerned about the fiscal impact given the state of the economy.

"When it gets to my desk I'll consider it," the governor said in an interview. "But the premise is correct: The family court system needs to be expanded, and we need to give younger people in the system a greater opportunity. ... But it's hard to expand anything until we get our fiscal house in order."

The Office of Court Administration estimates the 21 new judgeships will cost around $18 million per year, including the judges' salaries, support staff and infrastructure costs.

According to the Senate, the judiciary will absorb the cost for the remainder this budget year.

In addition, some policymakers have suggested that the judiciary could absorb the cost of the judgeships moving forward with its existing budget, which totaled $2.6 billion this year.

Lippman said the investment in new judgeships will be more than paid back in the lives of New Yorkers moving through the family court system.

"Judgeships cost money, and the people who support judges in the courtroom cost money, and the back-office people," he said. "But the investment is minimal in terms of the benefits."